VI. Results

The results reflect the responses provided by charging parties
and respondents who were involved in the EEOC mediations from March
1 to July 31, 2000. There were 1,683 completed surveys from the
charging parties and 1,572 completed surveys from the respondents.
These numbers include only properly-completed questionnaires. As
discussed earlier, in cases where the protocol and the instructions
were not strictly followed, the questionnaires were excluded from
the final sample.

The number of questionnaires received from the two participant
groups represents a comprehensive survey of mediations conducted by
the EEOC. The sample consists of responses from 24 of the 25 EEOC
district offices (Appendix A.1). The sample size establishes this
survey as the one of the largest comprehensive studies of mediation
programs ever conducted.

A. Profile of the Sample

What are the characteristics of the sample? How representative
is this sample when compared to the cases mediated by the EEOC? To
answer these questions, we present a profile of our sample and a
comparison of the profile of cases mediated by the EEOC during the
March 1 - July 31 period. Information was gathered about the
characteristics of the participants, the nature of their charges,
and the characteristics of their mediation sessions. Regarding the
participant characteristics, information was gathered about the
respondents' number of employees. Regarding the nature of the
participant charges, information was gathered about the statute,
basis, and issue under which the cases were filed. Finally,
information regarding the mediation sessionsthe mediator
type, the presence or use of a legal or non-legal representative,
and the status of the mediation at the time the questionnaire was
completedwas gathered and tabulated. Comparisons demonstrate
that the profile of our sample closely resembles the profile of the
EEOC database.

1. The Characteristic of the Participants: Company Size

Between March 1 and July 31, 2000, the EEOC mediated a total of
4,776 cases. The companies involved in these mediations were
classified into four categories. Based on the EEOC data, 40.2% of
the cases involved companies with 15 to 100 employees, 13.7% with
101 to 200 employees, 11.3% with 201 to 500 employees, and 32% with
more than 500 employees. When we compare our sample to the above
distribution, results show that the composition of participants is
the same. The majority of the participants were employed in
companies with 15 to 100 employees (40.7% of charging parties,
41.7% of respondents) and companies with more than 500 employees
(30.2% and 30.3%, respectively). The rest of the participants were
employed in companies with 101 to 200 employees (14.9%, 14.1%) and
201 to 500 employees (12%, 11.3%).

2. Nature of the Participant Charges

Information was also gathered regarding the nature of the
participant charges. Each case is categorized based on the statute
at issue (Title VII, ADEA, ADA), the basis of the charge (religion,
gender, national origin, race, disability, and age), and the issue
(discharge, terms and conditions of employment, harassment, sexual
harassment, promotion, wages, discipline, and reasonable
accommodation). It should be noted that some parties filed a charge
under more than one statute, basis, or issue.

a. Statute

Title VII, ADEA, and ADA are the statutes at issue. Title VII is
the statute that is applicable to the majority of charges. A review
of the charges of the charging parties shows that there were 1,199
charges that pertained to Title VII, 360 to the ADEA, and 396 to
the ADA. On the respondent side, 1,127 charges pertained to Title
VII, 331 to the ADEA, and 379 to the ADA.

b. Basis

The bases of the majority of charges were race and gender,
followed by disability, age, national origin, and religion. For the
charging parties, the basis of 638 charges was race, 511 gender,
392 disability, 357 age, 149 national origin, and 42 religion. For
the respondents, the basis of 593 charges was race, 482 gender, 374
disability, 327 age, 151 national origin, and 39 religion.

c. Issue

The issues were classified as discharge, terms and conditions of
employment, harassment, sexual harassment, promotion, wages,
discipline, and reasonable accommodation. As indicated in Table I,
the majority of the charges were related to discharge and terms and
conditions of employment.

Table I
Comparison of the Nature of the Charges Between Our Sample and the
EEOC Database

EEOC Mediation Cases (March 1 - July 31)

Charging Parties

Respondents

Title VII

73.8%

71.2%

71.7%

Age

19.2%

21.4%

21.1%

Disability

22.3%

23.5%

24.1%

Basis

Religion

2.4%

2.5%

2.5%

Gender

33.3%

30.4%

30.7%

National Origin

8.5%

8.9%

9.6%

Race

35.2%

37.9%

37.7%

Disability

23.1%

23.3%

23.8%

Age

19.3%

21.2%

20.8%

Issue

Discharge

46.0%

48.6%

49.6%

Terms and
Conditions

20.9%

19.0%

18.4%

Harassment

19.1%

17.1%

16.8%

Sexual Harassment

12.1%

10.4%

10.6%

Promotion

10.4%

10.1%

10.0%

Wages

9.1%

9.2%

8.7%

Discipline

8.9%

9.2%

9.0%

Reasonable
Accommodation

8.8%

8.6%

8.7%

The results show that there is a strong similarity between the
EEOC's database and our sample with respect to statute, basis, and
issue, as shown in the above table.

3. Characteristics of the Mediation Session

Information was gathered regarding the characteristics of the
mediation session, such as mediator type, representation, and
mediation status. Although there was comparable EEOC information
regarding mediator type, there was no comparable information on the
other two variables. Thus, no comparison is presented below.

a. Mediator Type

For both groups in our sample, the vast majority (78%) of cases
were mediated by internal mediators, 21% were mediated by external
mediators, and the rest were mediated by a combination of external
and internal mediators. This profile closely resembles the EEOC's
use of internal and external mediators during this period74%
of the total cases during this period were mediated by internal
mediators, 25% by external mediators, and 1% by a combination of
both.

b. Representation

There is a marked difference in the use of representation by the
two parties. Respondents were more likely to have a representative
going into the mediation. Only 41% of the charging parties were
represented, whereas 58% of the respondents were represented.
Fifty-eight percent of the charging parties and 40% of the
respondents did not have representatives. One percent of the
charging parties and two percent of the respondents did not furnish
this information.

c. Mediation Status

For the majority of participants (74% of charging parties and
81% of the respondents), their mediation was completed at the time
of the survey. Analysis reveals that 56% of the charging parties'
and 61% of the respondents' charges have been resolved. The rest of
the charging parties either responded that their cases are still
ongoing (14%) or did not provide any information on the status
(12%) of their mediation. Respondents were more cognizant of the
status of their mediationonly 6% did not provide this
information. The rest of the respondents (13%) replied that their
sessions were ongoing.

In summary, the discussion above demonstrates the very strong
similarity between the sample and population group with regard to
the type of mediator used, the company size, the statute the cases
were filed under, the basis of the charges, and the specific issue
under consideration. These similarities demonstrate that the
results of this study are generalizable to the population. There
was only one area where differences occurred between the two
databases. Differences occurred in terms of the geographic or
district office distribution (Appendix A.1). Notwithstanding these
differences, it is our opinion that this will not substantially
affect or bias the results of this study. Statistical tests
indicate that the responses of the participants are, by and large,
independent of their geographic location.

B. Participant Feedback Regarding the Mediation

The survey questions regarding participant feedback of the
mediation are comprised of two major areas of evaluation:
procedural and distributive elements. Questions concerning
procedural elements include statements about mediation preparation,
comprehension of the process, voice (i.e., opportunity to present
views), and the mediator's role and conduct.

Participant satisfaction with the distributive elements of
mediation was measured using four questions concerning the results.
More specifically, three questions were asked about participant
attitudes regarding the realistic nature of the options developed
during the mediation, their satisfaction with the fairness of
mediation, and their satisfaction with the results. The fourth
distributive question was a "yes/no" question concerning whether
the participants obtained what they wanted from the mediation. With
the exception of this question, all other distributive and
procedural questions discussed above were measured using a Likert
scale with a continuum of 1 to 5, 1 representing strong
disagreement and 5 representing strong agreement.

1. Procedural Elements and Mediation

Four statements were used to measure the participants'
satisfaction with the mediation process. Of these, the first two
were "pre-mediation session" or "mediation preparation" statements
regarding whether the participants received an adequate explanation
from an EEOC representative and whether the session was scheduled
promptly. The next two statements asked whether the participants
understood the process and had an opportunity to present their
views.

a. Explanation, Scheduling, and Voice

An analysis of the participant responses regarding their
"pre-mediation" or mediation preparation experiences shows that the
participants had a positive experience. Eighty-seven percent of the
participants agreed with the statement that "prior to my attendance
at this mediation session today, I received an adequate explanation
about mediation from an EEOC representative." The mean score for
the statement was 4.23. As indicated in Table II, data also show
that both charging parties and respondents were in agreement
regarding the statement. Eighty-eight percent of the charging
parties agreed with the statement and 85% of the respondents agreed
with the statement. The mean score for the charging parties was
4.24 and the respondents was 4.21, indicating that there is very
little difference between the two groups regarding their attitudes
on this issue.

Eighty-nine percent of the participants agreed with the
statement that "the mediation was scheduled promptly." The mean
score was 4.34, indicating that there was strong agreement about
the prompt scheduling of mediation. Ninety-one percent of the
respondents and 88% of the charging parties agreed with the
statement. As shown in Chart A, the mean score was 4.39 for the
respondent group and 4.28 for the charging party group. Analysis
reveals that the difference in the mean scores is significant,
indicating that the respondents were more satisfied than the
charging parties with the prompt scheduling of mediation.

Participants also agreed with the statements regarding the
mediation session. Ninety-four percent of the participants agreed
with the statement that "after the mediator's introduction, I felt
that I understood the mediation process." The mean score was 4.44,
indicating that participants strongly agreed that they understood
the process. A comparison of the two groups shows that 96% of the
respondents and 92% of the charging parties agreed with the
statement. Analysis reveals that the responses of the participant
groups varied significantly and that the respondents (mean score of
4.53) agreed more strongly than the charging parties (mean score of
4.35) that they understood the process.

Participants also felt that they had a voice during the process.
The vast majority of the participants agreed with the statement
that "I (or my representative) had a full opportunity to present my
views during the mediation process." Ninety-five percent of the
respondents and 90% of the charging parties agreed with this
statement, indicating that the opportunity to present one's views,
one of the essential elements of procedural justice, was present in
the EEOC mediation process. The average mean scores reveal that the
respondents (4.57) felt more strongly than the charging parties
(4.39) that they had an opportunity to present their views.

In summary, participant responses to this set of mediation
process questions indicated strong satisfaction with this part of
the mediation process for both charging parties and respondents.
They rated the "pre-mediation" aspects of the process very highly.
They also felt that they understood the mediation process and they
or their representative had an opportunity to present their views
during the session. Although both charging parties and respondents
had similar attitudes regarding the mediation process, it should be
noted that respondents agreed more strongly to statements
concerning the prompt scheduling of mediation, understanding of
mediation, and presentation of views. These findings are
highlighted in Chart A and Table II. For a more detailed
presentation of the data tabulations, refer to Appendix B.

Table II
Participant Satisfaction with the Explanation, Scheduling, and
Voice*

Statements

Charging Parties
Mean
(n, %)

Respondents
Mean
(n, %)

Prior to my attendance at this
mediation session today, I received an adequate explanation about
mediation from an EEOC representative.

4.24
(1637, 88.3%)

4.21
(1516, 85.4%)

The mediation was scheduled
promptly.

4.28
(1673, 87.7%)

4.39
(1559, 90.5%)

After the mediator's
introduction, I felt that I understood the mediation process.

4.35
(1676, 91.6%)

4.53
(1561, 95.8%)

I (or my representative) had a
full opportunity to present my views during the mediation
process.

4.39
(1677, 89.8%)

4.57
(1563, 95.0%)

*Satisfaction is measured by the "mean responses" of the
participants on a Likert scale (scale of 1 {strongly disagree} to 5
{strongly agree}) and by the percentage of participants who agreed
or strongly agreed with the statements. The sample size (n) is also
given for evaluation purposes. Figures in bold refer to statements
where a statistically significant difference (evaluated at 95%
confidence level) exists between the mean responses of the charging
parties and respondents.

b. The Mediator

The second set of questions focused on statements regarding the
mediator's performance. More specifically, participants were asked
whether the mediator understood their needs, helped to clarify
their needs, remained neutral in the beginning as well as
throughout the process, helped to develop options for the
resolution of their claim, and used procedures that were fair to
them.

The majority of the participants felt that the mediator
understood their needs (87%) and helped to clarify their needs
(82%). Eighty-six percent of the 1,669 charging parties and 87% of
the 1,552 respondents agreed that the mediator understood their
needs. The mean scores of the charging parties (4.30) and the
respondents (4.31) indicate that the parties' responses were
identical with regard to the statement that "the mediator
understood my needs." The participants also felt that "the mediator
helped clarify my needs." Eighty-four percent of the charging
parties and 79% of the respondents expressed either strong or very
strong agreement with the above statement. Although the agreement
was strong among participants in general, it was stronger among
charging parties (mean of 4.25) than among respondents (mean of
4.17).

An overwhelming majority of the participants agreed with the
statements regarding the neutrality of the mediator. Of the 1,674
charging parties who responded to the statement "at the beginning
of the mediation, I considered the mediator to be neutral," 1,542
(92%) agreed with the statement. Similarly, 1,441 of the 1,566
respondents (92%) who answered indicated strong agreement with the
statement. The mean scores of 4.44 for the charging parties and
4.49 for the respondents indicate the strength of the attitudes of
participants. Participants also agreed that "the mediator remained
neutral during the session." Ninety-one percent of the charging
parties and 89% of the respondents agreed with the statement. An
analysis of the mean scores of the participants (4.42 for the
charging parties and 4.43 for the respondents) shows that the
participant groups felt very strongly that the mediator remained
neutral during the session.

Participants also felt that the mediator played a very useful
role in the development of options for the resolution of the
charge. Eighty-five percent of the charging parties and 84% of the
respondents agreed with the statement that "the mediator helped the
parties develop options for resolving the charge." The nearly
identical mean scores of the participants (4.27 for the charging
parties and 4.23 for the respondents) attest to the fact that the
attitudes of both participant groups were very similar.

Participants agreed that the procedures used by the mediator
were fair to them. Of the 1,668 charging parties who responded to
the statement "the procedures used by the mediator in the mediation
were fair to me," 1,476 (89%) expressed agreement with the fairness
of the mediation procedures. Similarly, of the 1,564 respondents
who answered, 1,436 (92%) expressed agreement. Analysis of the mean
scores reveals that the respondents (4.44) agreed more strongly
than the charging parties (4.33) regarding the fairness of the
procedures used by the mediator.

Overall, as shown in Chart B and Table III, the participants
were very satisfied with the role and conduct of the mediator.
There were some differences between the two participant groups
regarding their perceptions of mediators. A higher percentage of
charging parties (84%) than respondents (79%) agreed that the
mediator helped to clarify their needs. The reverse is the case
regarding the participant attitudes concerning fairness of the
procedures used by the mediator. Ninety-two percent of the
respondents agreed with the statement, whereas 89% of the charging
parties agreed.

As illustrated in this section on procedural elements, both the
charging parties and respondents were very satisfied with the
fairness of the process. The mean scores of both participant groups
were over 4.00 on a 5-point scale, indicating their strong
agreement with the process statements. Similarly, an analysis of
the percentages reveals that the vast majority of participants
(over 80% with one exception) either agreed or strongly agreed with
the process statements. Thus, participants indicated a high level
of satisfaction with the EEOC mediation process.

Table III
Participant Satisfaction with the Mediator*

Statements

Charging Parties
Mean
(n, %)

Respondents
Mean
(n, %)

The mediator understood my needs.

4.30
(1669, 86.4%)

4.31
(1552, 86.9%)

The mediator helped clarify my needs.

4.25
(1665, 84.4%)

4.17
(1504, 79.3%)

At the beginning of the mediation, I considered the mediator to
be neutral.

4.44
(1674, 92.1%)

4.49
(1566, 92.0%)

The mediator remained neutral throughout the session.

4.42
(1664, 90.7%)

4.43
(1564, 89.1%)

The mediator helped the parties develop options for resolving
the charge.

4.27
(1661, 85.1%)

4.23
(1545, 83.9%)

The procedures used by the mediator in the mediation were fair
to me.

4.33
(1668, 88.5%)

4.44
(1564, 91.8%)

* Satisfaction is measured by the "mean responses" of the
participants on a Likert scale (scale of 1 {strongly disagree} to 5
{strongly agree}) and by the percentage of participants who agreed
or strongly agreed with the statements. The sample size (n) is also
given for evaluation purposes. Figures in bold refer to statements
where a statistically significant difference (evaluated at 95%
confidence level) exists between the mean responses of the charging
parties and respondents.

2. Distributive Elements and Mediation

The third set of questions addressed the "bottom line" issues of
participant satisfaction with the outcome of the mediation process.
Three statements measured the distributive elements. The first was
concerning the realistic nature of the solutions developed during
the mediation, and the other two were regarding the participant
satisfaction with the fairness of mediation and with the results of
mediation.

The first statement concerning the mediation outcome was that
"most of the options developed during the mediation session were
realistic solutions to resolving the charge." The participants
responded very similarly to this statement: 76% of the respondents
and 75% of the charging parties expressed agreement with the
statement. A larger percentage of participants (16% of respondents
and 13% of charging parties) remained neutral regarding this
statement as opposed to the other mediation process statements. The
mean scores of 4.00 for the respondents and 3.95 for the charging
parties indicate that they agreed upon the realistic nature of the
options developed during the session and that there was very little
difference in the views of the participant groups regarding this
issue.

Eighty-seven percent of the respondents and 79% of the charging
parties agreed with the statement that "I was satisfied with the
fairness of the mediation session." An analysis of the mean scores
of the two groups indicates that respondents agreed more strongly
(4.31) with the statement than the charging parties (4.07).

While the vast majority of the participants (83%) were satisfied
with the fairness of the mediation session, their satisfaction with
the results (59%) of the mediation was more tempered. Of the 1,547
charging parties who responded to the statement "I was satisfied
with the results of mediation," 55% agreed with the statement,
whereas of the 1,477 respondents, 63% agreed. Thus, the respondents
were more satisfied with the results of the mediation than the
charging parties. The mean scores reveal that respondents agreed
more strongly (mean of 3.67) than the charging parties (3.38) with
the statement. Chart C and Table IV present these findings. This
result should be interpreted with some caution since our sample
includes participants from on-going mediations.

Table IV
Participant Satisfaction with the Distributive Elements of
Mediation*

Statements

Charging Parties
Mean
(n, %)

Respondents
Mean
(n, %)

Most of the options developed
during the mediation session were realistic solutions to resolving
the charge.

3.95
(1648, 75.2%)

4.00
(1519, 75.6%)

I was satisfied with the fairness
of the mediation session.

4.07
(1648, 78.9%)

4.31
(1559, 86.9%)

I was satisfied with the results
of the mediation.

3.38
(1547, 54.8%)

3.67
(1477, 62.6%)

*Satisfaction is measured by the "mean responses" of the
participants on a Likert scale (scale of 1 {strongly disagree} to 5
{strongly agree}) and by the percentage of participants who agreed
or strongly agreed with the statements. The sample size (n) is also
given for evaluation purposes. Figures in bold refer to statements
where a statistically significant difference (evaluated at 95%
confidence level) exists between the mean responses of the charging
parties and respondents.

The survey also sought to measure whether the participants
obtained what they wanted from mediation. This is a strong
distributive measure. The participants were asked whether they
knew, before going into mediation, what they wanted from mediation.
If they stated that they did, then they were also asked whether
they obtained what they wanted.<120> Of the 79% of the charging parties
who indicated that they knew what they wanted,<121> only 41% stated that they obtained
what they wanted. Of the 83% of the respondents who knew what they
wanted going into the mediation, 57% stated that they obtained what
they wanted. Charts D and E depict these results.

Another distributive justice question targeted those
participants whose disputes did not get resolved during mediation.
As indicated earlier, 26% of the charging parties and 19% of the
respondents did not resolve their claims. They were asked whether
progress was made in mediation toward the resolution of their
claim. As shown in Table V, of the 488 charging parties who
responded, 29% agreed that progress was made. Similarly, 28% of the
486 respondents agreed with the statement. The mean scores of 2.60
for the charging parties and 2.72 for the respondents indicate that
the respondents agreed more strongly than the charging parties that
progress was made in mediation.

Table V
Responses of Participants Whose Claims Were Not Resolved in
Mediation Regarding Whether Progress was Made Toward
Resolution

Participant
Group

Total
Responses

Mean Rating

Strongly Disagree/ Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Agree/Strongly
Agree

Charging Parties

488

2.60

48.6%

22.1%

29.3%

Respondents

486

2.72

41.6%

30.9%

27.6%

In summary, the analysis of participant responses shows that the
participants were satisfied with both procedural and distributive
elements of mediation. The participants were more satisfied with
the procedural elements than with the distributive elements.
Regarding the procedural elements, participants expressed the
highest degree of satisfaction with the neutrality of the mediator,
the opportunity to present their views, and their understanding of
the process. Concerning the distributive elements, participants
were more satisfied with the fairness of mediation and with the
realistic nature of the options developed during the mediation than
they were with the results of mediation. These findings are
summarized in Table VI.

Table VI
Participant Satisfaction with the Procedural and Distributive
Elements of Mediation*

Statements

Charging Parties
Mean
(n, %)

Respondents
Mean
(n, %)

Procedural Elements

Explanation, Scheduling, and
Voice

Prior to my attendance at this mediation session
today, I received an adequate explanation about mediation from an
EEOC representative.

4.24
(1637, 88.3%)

4.21
(1516, 85.4%)

The mediation was scheduled promptly.

4.28
(1673, 87.7%)

4.39
(1559, 90.5%)

After the mediator's introduction, I felt that I
understood the mediation process.

4.35
(1676, 91.6%)

4.53
(1561, 95.8%)

I (or my representative) had a full opportunity to
present my views during the mediation process.

4.39
(1677, 89.8%)

4.57
(1563, 95.0%)

Mediator

The mediator understood my needs.

4.30
(1669, 86.4%)

4.31
(1552, 86.9%)

The mediator helped clarify my needs.

4.25
(1665, 84.4%)

4.17
(1504, 79.3%)

At the beginning of the mediation, I considered the
mediator to be neutral.

4.44
(1674, 92.1%)

4.49
(1566, 92.0%)

The mediator remained neutral throughout the
session.

4.42
(1664, 90.7%)

4.43
(1564, 89.1%)

The mediator helped the parties develop options for
resolving the charge.

4.27
(1661, 85.1%)

4.23
(1545, 83.9%)

The procedures used by the mediator in the
mediation were fair to me.

4.33
(1668, 88.5%)

4.44
(1564, 91.8%)

Distributive Elements

Most of the options developed during the mediation
session were realistic solutions to resolving the charge.

3.95
(1648, 75.2%)

4.00
(1519, 75.6%)

I was satisfied with the fairness of the mediation
session.

4.07
(1648, 78.9%)

4.31
(1559, 86.9%)

I was satisfied with the results of the
mediation.

3.38
(1547, 54.8%)

3.67
(1477, 62.6%)

*Satisfaction is measured by the "mean responses" of the
participants on a Likert scale (scale of 1 {strongly disagree} to 5
{strongly agree}) and by the percentage of participants who agreed
or strongly agreed with the statements. The sample size (n) is also
given for evaluation purposes. Figures in bold refer to statements
where a statistically significant difference (evaluated at 95%
confidence level) exists between the mean responses of the charging
parties and respondents.

C. The Influence of Other Variables on Participant
Satisfaction

Were participants who had representation more satisfied with
mediation than those who had none? Did the mediation status affect
participant satisfaction with mediation? Did the company size
matter? Did participant responses vary according to the statute,
basis, or issue? We have analyzed participant responses based on
the following eight variables: company size, mediation statute,
basis of charge, issue, mediator type, representation, mediation
status, and mediation result. We have presented summary tables of
data tabulations in the appropriate subsections of this section.
For detailed data tabulation tables, refer to Appendix B.

1. Participant Responses and Company Size

The participants of this research came from organizations of
different sizes. We divided the participants into four groups based
on the size of their companies and analyzed their responses to see
if they varied according to company size. The first group comprised
of participants from organizations that had 15 to 100 employees;
the second group came from companies that had 101 to 200 employees;
the third group from companies that had 201 to 500; and the last
from organizations that had over 500 employees. Our analysis found
only one significant difference based on company size. Among the
charging parties, members of the fourth group (more than 500
employees) rated the statement regarding the development of
realistic options significantly lower than the other groups. Among
both participant groups, there were no other significant trends or
patterns related to organization size. These results are presented
in Tables VII and VIII.

Table VII
Charging Parties' Satisfaction Based on Company Size*

Statements

15 to 100
(Group 1)

101-200
(Group II)

201 to 500
(Group III)

More than 500
(Group IV)

Procedural
Elements

Explanation, Scheduling, and
Voice

Adequate explanation

4.25
(664, 89.0%)

4.22
(245, 87.3%)

4.27
(192, 88.5%)

4.22
(499, 87.2%)

Prompt scheduling

4.31
(664, 89.0%)

4.21
(251, 84.9%)

4.37
(200, 89.0%)

4.26
(504, 87.1%)

Understood the process

4.38
(684, 92.4%)

4.32
(250, 90.8%)

4.39
(199, 92.0%)

4.29
(507, 90.3%)

Opportunity to present views

4.40
(684, 90.2%)

4.34
(251, 88.0%)

4.36
(201, 88.1%)

4.39
(506, 90.5%)

Mediator

Mediator understood needs

4.33
(683, 87.0%)

4.25
(250, 85.6%)

4.36
(198, 88.4%)

4.25
(502, 85.1%)

Mediator helped clarify needs

4.28
(680, 85.4%)

4.20
(250, 82.4%)

4.30
(200, 85.0%)

4.24
(498, 84.1%)

Mediator neutral in the beginning

4.46
(682, 92.2%)

4.43
(249, 93.2%)

4.48
(201, 92.0%)

4.40
(505, 91.5%)

Mediator remained neutral

4.43
(680, 91.0%)

4.43
(244, 91.0%)

4.43
(201, 89.1%)

4.39
(502, 91.0%)

Mediator helped develop options

4.32
(677, 85.8%)

4.26
(247, 85.4%)

4.27
(200, 86.0%)

4.20
(501, 83.4%)

Mediator used fair procedures

4.36
(681, 89.3%)

4.29
(250, 88.4%)

4.34
(199, 87.9%)

4.30
(503, 87.5%)

Distributive Elements

Development of realistic options

4.03
(678, 77.6%)

3.95
(245, 74.3%)

4.04
(196, 77.0%)

3.83
(493, 71.6%)

Satisfaction with the fairness of the session

4.11
(673, 80.7%)

4.08
(247, 77.7%)

4.04
(194, 76.3%)

4.04
(497, 78.5%)

Satisfaction with the results

3.45
(631, 56.7%)

3.33
(235, 54.0%)

3.42
(184, 54.9%)

3.30
(463, 52.3%)

*Satisfaction is measured by the "mean responses" of the
participants on a Likert scale (scale of 1 {strongly disagree} to 5
{strongly agree}) and by the percentage of participants who agreed
or strongly agreed with the statements. The sample size (n) is also
given for evaluation purposes. Figures in bold refer to statements
where a statistically significant difference (evaluated at 95%
confidence level) exists among the mean responses of the different
groups.

Table VIII
Respondents' Satisfaction Based on Company Size*

Statements

15 to 100
(Group 1)

101 to 200
(Group II)

201 to 500
(Group III)

More than 500
(Group IV)

Procedural Elements

Explanation, Scheduling, & Voice

Adequate explanation

4.17
(635, 84.1%)

4.20
(215, 85.6%)

4.30
(174, 89.1%)

4.25
(453, 86.3%)

Prompt scheduling

4.37
(652, 90.3%)

4.37
(222, 88.7%)

4.44
(177, 93.2%)

4.41
(471, 90.4%)

Understood the process

4.52
(652, 95.9%)

4.50
(221, 94.6%)

4.57
(177, 98.3%)

4.54
(472, 95.6%)

Opportunity to present views

4.58
(655, 94.5%)

4.52
(221, 95.0%)

4.58
(176, 96.0%)

4.57
(472, 95.1%)

Mediator

Mediator understood needs

4.30
(649, 87.1%)

4.32
(221, 87.8%)

4.33
(177, 85.9%)

4.30
(467, 86.9%)

Mediator helped clarify needs

4.18
(632, 80.2%)

4.15
(210, 76.2%)

4.18
(170, 77.6%)

4.17
(457, 80.3%)

Mediator neutral in the beginning

4.47
(654, 91.6%)

4.52
(222, 92.3%)

4.53
(177, 93.2%)

4.48
(474, 92.0%)

Mediator remained neutral

4.42
(655, 89.0%)

4.43
(220, 89.5%)

4.41
(177, 89.3%)

4.45
(473, 88.8%)

Mediator helped develop options

4.22
(647, 84.2%)

4.20
(217, 81.6%)

4.25
(173, 83.8%)

4.24
(470, 84.3%)

Mediator used fair procedures

4.42
(654, 90.8%)

4.45
(220, 92.7%)

4.50
(177, 94.9%)

4.43
(474, 91.4%)

Distributive Elements

Development of realistic options

3.96
(640, 75.6%)

4.00
(219, 75.3%)

4.05
(166, 79.5%)

4.02
(456, 74.3%)

Satisfaction with the fairness of the session

4.28
(653, 84.5%)

4.29
(221, 87.8%)

4.36
(176, 87.5%)

4.35
(470, 88.9%)

Satisfaction with the results

3.61
(619, 60.9%)

3.66
(214, 63.1%)

3.81
(165, 66.7%)

3.69
(442, 62.9%)

*Satisfaction is measured by the "mean responses" of the
participants on a Likert scale (scale of 1 {strongly disagree} to 5
{strongly agree}) and by the percentage of participants who agreed
or strongly agreed with the statements. The sample size (n) is also
given for evaluation purposes. Figures in bold refer to statements
where a statistically significant difference (evaluated at 95%
confidence level) exists among the mean responses of the different
groups.

2. Participant Responses and the Nature of the Charges

Participant responses were analyzed according to the applicable
statute, basis, or issue involved in a charge. Since between-group
(charging party vs. respondent) comparisons are more meaningful in
this evaluation to see whether the nature of charges affected the
parties, the major focus here will be on between-group
comparisons.

a. Statute

Participant responses were analyzed based on the statute at
issue - Title VII, ADEA, and ADA. The only significant trend was
that both participant groups--charging parties and respondents--
rated the procedural elements of their mediation session more
highly than the distributive elements. Analysis of the responses of
the participant groups revealed no significant differences based on
the statute. As shown in Tables IX and X, the consistency of the
responses of the various subgroups was rather interesting. For
example, the statement concerning the respondents' satisfaction
with the fairness of the results yielded a mean score of 3.65 from
the first group (Title VII), 3.67 from the second group (ADEA), and
3.66 from the third group (ADA).

"Between-group comparisons" (charging party and respondent
groups) of the responses yielded some significant results. Under
Title VII, the perceptions of the participant groups differed
significantly regarding the prompt scheduling of mediation,
understanding of the process, opportunity to present views,
mediator's use of fair procedures, satisfaction with the fairness
of the mediation, and satisfaction with the results. In all
instances, while the charging parties were positive, respondents
were more positive regarding their experiences.

Table IX
Charging Parties' Satisfaction Based on Statutes At
Issue*

Statements

Title VII
(Group 1)

ADEA
(Group II)

ADA
(Group III)

Procedural Elements

Explanation, Scheduling, and Voice

Adequate explanation

4.23
(1165, 87.5%)

4.25
(351, 90.6%)

4.24
(385, 87.3%)

Prompt scheduling

4.26
(1190, 86.9%)

4.34
(359, 91.6%)

4.34
(394, 89.1%)

Understood the process

4.34
(1192, 91.2%)

4.35
(360, 93.1%)

4.38
(395, 91.6%)

Opportunity to present views

4.36
(1193, 88.8%)

4.38
(360, 91.1%)

4.44
(394, 90.4%)

Mediator

Mediator understood needs

4.27
(1188, 85.3%)

4.33
(354, 88.1%)

4.37
(395, 88.4%)

Mediator helped clarify needs

4.23
(1186, 83.3%)

4.27
(354, 85.6%)

4.32
(395, 86.1%)

Mediator neutral in the beginning

4.42
(1191, 91.3%)

4.47
(358, 95.0%)

4.46
(395, 92.4%)

Mediator remained neutral

4.40
(1185, 89.7%)

4.42
(357, 93.3%)

4.45
(392, 92.3%)

Mediator helped develop options

4.26
(1181, 84.8%)

4.26
(357, 84.9%)

4.28
(391, 85.4%)

Mediator used fair procedures

4.32
(1186, 87.8%)

4.31
(356, 89.6%)

4.38
(393, 89.6%)

Distributive Elements

Development of realistic options

3.95
(1172, 75.1%)

3.92
(352, 73.0%)

3.92
(388, 74.2%)

Satisfaction with the fairness of the session

4.05
(1173, 78.2%)

4.09
(356, 82.0%)

4.09
(387, 78.0%)

Satisfaction with the results

3.34
(1099, 53.0%)

3.44
(328, 60.7%)

3.33
(369, 53.4%)

*Satisfaction is measured by the "mean responses" of the
participants on a Likert scale (scale of 1 {strongly disagree} to 5
{strongly agree}) and by the percentage of participants who agreed
or strongly agreed with the statements. The sample size (n) is also
given for evaluation purposes. Figures in bold refer to statements
where a statistically significant difference (evaluated at 95%
confidence level) exists between the mean responses of the charging
parties and respondents.

Table X
Respondents' Satisfaction Based on Statutes At Issue*

Statements

Title VII
(Group I)

ADEA
(Group II)

ADA
(Group III)

Procedural Elements

Explanation, Scheduling, and Voice

Adequate explanation

4.23
(1083, 85.7%)

4.24
(317, 87.1%)

4.15
(370, 84.1%)

Prompt scheduling

4.40
(1117, 90.7%)

4.46
(328, 91.8%)

4.36
(377, 89.9%)

Understood the process

4.53
(1118, 96.2%)

4.56
(331, 95.5%)

4.52
(377, 94.7%)

Opportunity to present views

4.58
(1119, 95.4%)

4.61
(330, 96.1%)

4.52
(377, 92.8%)

Mediator

Mediator understood needs

4.31
(1110, 87.2%)

4.31
(331, 87.0%)

4.27
(375, 85.6%)

Mediator helped clarify needs

4.18
(1071, 80.3%)

4.16
(326, 79.1%)

4.11
(362, 76.0%)

Mediator neutral in the beginning

4.49
(1121, 91.9%)

4.53
(331, 93.7%)

4.46
(379, 92.1%)

Mediator remained neutral

4.45
(1120, 89.6%)

4.46
(329, 90.0%)

4.41
(379, 89.4%)

Mediator helped develop options

4.25
(1104, 84.9%)

4.18
(326, 80.7%)

4.18
(377, 82.0%)

Mediator used fair procedures

4.44
(1119, 92.0%)

4.48
(331, 93.7%)

4.42
(379, 91.3%)

Distributive Elements

Development of realistic options

4.01
(1084, 76.7%)

4.01
(323, 74.9%)

3.98
(372, 73.4%)

Satisfaction with the fairness of the session

4.33
(1118, 87.3%)

4.35
(328, 88.7%)

4.24
(377, 86.2%)

Satisfaction with the results

3.65
(1056, 62.6%)

3.67
(315, 60.3%)

3.66
(357, 63.3%)

*Satisfaction is measured by the "mean responses" of the
participants on a Likert scale (scale of 1 {strongly disagree} to 5
{strongly agree}) and by the percentage of participants who agreed
or strongly agreed with the statements. The sample size (n) is also
given for evaluation purposes. Figures in bold refer to statements
where a statistically significant difference (evaluated at 95%
confidence level) exists between the mean responses of the charging
parties and respondents.

Similarly, between-group analysis under the ADEA yielded
significant results regarding participants' satisfaction with two
of the three distributive measures - satisfaction with the fairness
of the mediation session and satisfaction with the results. In both
instances, the respondents' responses were more positive than the
charging parties' responses, indicating a greater satisfaction on
the respondents' part.

Between-group analysis of participant responses based on the ADA
revealed significant differences between the groups regarding
participant understanding of the process, the role of the mediator
in helping to clarify their needs, and their satisfaction with the
fairness of mediation and with the results. While the charging
parties agreed more strongly than the respondents that the mediator
helped to clarify their needs, the respondents were more satisfied
with the other three statements.

In summary, although the responses of the charging parties and
respondents varied significantly on some questions, the mean scores
of both groups on all the questions, except one (satisfaction with
results), are around 4 or much higher, indicating the high marks
they gave to the EEOC mediation program regardless of the
applicable statute.

b. Basis

The analysis was sub-divided into the following six
charge-bases: religion, gender, national origin, race, disability,
and age. Analysis of the responses of the charging parties based on
the bases of their charges revealed that members of group three
(national origin) had a higher mean score on all the questions
regarding their mediation experiences. This indicates that although
all charging party groups reported positive results, this one group
was even more positive about their experiences than the other five
groups. Analysis of the responses of the respondent group based on
the basis of their charges revealed that members of the first group
(religion) were less satisfied with the distributive elements of
mediation than the other five groups. This group's satisfaction
with many of the procedural elements of mediation did not vary
substantially from that of the other groups. Tables XI and XII
present these results.

Although between-group comparisons yielded no significant
results for participants whose basis was religion, there were
differences based on the other five bases. Among the participants
of the second group (gender), the respondents agreed more strongly
than the charging parties that they understood the process and had
an opportunity to present their views. They also expressed greater
satisfaction with the fairness of the mediation session and with
the results than the charging parties.

Although the participants of the third group (national origin)
agreed that they were given an adequate explanation of the process
and that the mediator understood their needs, the charging parties
agreed more strongly than the respondents. Analysis of the
responses of the fourth group (race) shows that their viewpoints
were significantly different on eight out of the thirteen
statements. The respondents agreed more strongly than the charging
parties that the mediation was scheduled promptly, they understood
the process, and had an opportunity to present their views. They
rated the mediators highly in terms of mediators understanding
their needs, being neutral in the beginning, and using fair
processes. They also expressed greater satisfaction with the
fairness of mediation and with the results of mediation. Thus, in
all eight instances the respondents agreed more strongly than the
charging parties that their mediation experiences were
positive.

Table XI
Charging Parties' Satisfaction Based on the Basis of
Charge*

Statements

Religion
(Group I)

Gender
(Group II)

National Origin
(Group III)

Race
(Group IV)

Disability
(Group V)

Age
(Group VI)

Procedural Elements

Explanation, Scheduling, and Voice

Adequate explanation

4.10
(42,
81.0%)

4.19
(499,
85.4%)

4.42
(145,
91.0%)

4.21
(616,
88.6%)

4.25
(381,
87.7%)

4.17
(349,
88.0%)

Prompt scheduling

4.43
(42,
90.5%)

4.25
(510,
85.7%)

4.49
(148,
92.6%)

4.23
(632,
87.3%)

4.34
(390,
89.2%)

4.28
(356,
88.5%)

Understood the process

4.40
(42,
92.9%)

4.35
(509,
91.4%)

4.42
(148,
92.6%)

4.28
(632,
90.5%)

4.38
(391,
91.8%)

4.31
(355,
91.5%)

Opportunity to present views

4.45
(42,
92.9%)

4.35
(510,
88.0%)

4.47
(148,
90.5%)

4.28
(633,
87.2%)

4.44
(390,
90.5%)

4.35
(354,
91.0%)

Mediator

Mediator understood needs

4.31
(42,
83.3%)

4.27
(507,
84.0%)

4.55
(144,
92.4%)

4.18
(632,
83.4%)

4.37
(391,
88.2%)

4.25
(356,
85.4%)

Mediator helped clarify needs

4.22
(41,
78.0%)

4.21
(506,
81.4%)

4.45
(147,
89.8%)

4.17
(631,
82.1%)

4.32
(391,
85.9%)

4.19
(353,
84.1%)

Mediator neutral in the beginning

4.50
(42,
97.6%)

4.46
(508,
91.9%)

4.59
(149,
96.6%)

4.34
(632,
89.7%)

4.47
(391,
92.6%)

4.38
(355,
92.4%)

Mediator remained neutral

4.55
(42,
95.2%)

4.41
(507,
89.2%)

4.55
(149,
94.6%)

4.34
(627,
88.8%)

4.46
(388,
92.5%)

4.38
(351,
90.6%)

Mediator helped develop options

4.17
(42,
81.0%)

4.24
(506,
83.0%)

4.51
(145,
93.1%)

4.21
(629,
83.9%)

4.29
(387,
85.5%)

4.25
(352,
85.5%)

Mediator used fair procedures

4.40
(40,
90.0%)

4.34
(508,
87.6%)

4.50
(147,
92.5%)

4.22
(631,
85.9%)

4.38
(389,
89.7%)

4.29
(355,
88.2%)

Distributive Elements

Development of realistic options

3.75
(40,
62.5%)

3.91
(503,
72.8%)

4.21
(146,
81.5%)

3.88
(623,
73.8%)

3.93
(384,
74.5%)

3.95
(349,
77.1%)

Satisfaction with the fairness of the session

4.00
(41,
80.5%)

4.07
(499,
77.4%)

4.30
(146,
87.7%)

3.99
(623,
77.7%)

4.09
(383,
77.8%)

4.06
(345,
81.4%)

Satisfaction with the results

3.13
(38,
47.4%)

3.27
(473,
47.8%)

3.63
(137,
62.8%)

3.32
(587,
53.3%)

3.33
(365,
53.2%)

3.30
(330,
54.8%)

*Satisfaction is measured by the "mean responses" of the
participants on a Likert scale (scale of 1 {strongly disagree} to 5
{strongly agree}) and by the percentage of participants who agreed
or strongly agreed with the statements. The sample size (n) is also
given for evaluation purposes. Figures in bold refer to statements
where a statistically significant difference (evaluated at 95%
confidence level) exists between the mean responses of the charging
parties and respondents.

Table XII
Respondents' Satisfaction Based on the Basis of Charge*

Statements

Religion
(Group I)

Gender
(Group II)

National Origin
(Group III)

Race
(Group IV)

Disability
(Group V)

Age
(Group VI)

Procedural Elements

Explanation, Scheduling, and Voice

Adequate explanation

4.00
(38,
78.9%)

4.19
(468,
84.4%)

4.18
(143,
85.3%)

4.21
(567,
85.4%)

4.15
(365,
83.8%)

4.17
(314,
83.4%)

Prompt scheduling

4.47
(38,
92.1%)

4.36
(480,
89.4%)

4.39
(150,
91.3%)

4.38
(588,
90.6%)

4.37
(372,
89.8%)

4.38
(325,
89.8%)

Understood the process

4.46
(39,
97.4%)

4.49
(481,
94.4%)

4.48
(149,
96.0%)

4.51
(588,
96.6%)

4.52
(372,
94.6%)

4.56
(325,
96.0%)

Opportunity to present views

4.53
(38,
97.4%)

4.53
(480,
93.3%)

4.56
(150,
94.0%)

4.57
(590,
95.8%)

4.52
(372,
93.0%)

4.59
(326,
95.1%)

Mediator

Mediator understood needs

4.29
(38,
86.8%)

4.26
(477,
84.5%)

4.34
(148,
87.2%)

4.31
(586,
87.7%)

4.28
(370,
85.7%)

4.29
(324,
86.7%)

Mediator helped clarify needs

4.03
(38,
71.1%)

4.14
(459,
78.0%)

4.28
(145,
84.1%)

4.16
(567,
80.2%)

4.11
(357,
75.9%)

4.20
(317,
80.1%)

Mediator neutral in the beginning

4.51
(39,
92.3%)

4.45
(481,
91.1%)

4.49
(150,
91.3%)

4.45
(590,
90.8%)

4.46
(374,
92.0%)

4.54
(327,
93.0%)

Mediator remained neutral

4.41
(39,
84.6%)

4.37
(481,
86.3%)

4.53
(150,
92.0%)

4.43
(588,
90.6%)

4.42
(374,
89.8%)

4.42
(327,
88.4%)

Mediator helped develop options

4.23
(39,
84.6%)

4.18
(473,
82.0%)

4.34
(149,
85.9%)

4.24
(579,
85.8%)

4.18
(372,
82.3%)

4.25
(325,
83.7%)

Mediator used fair procedures

4.26
(38,
89.5%)

4.41
(482,
89.6%)

4.43
(150,
92.7%)

4.42
(589,
92.4%)

4.43
(374,
91.7%)

4.44
(327,
90.8%)

Distributive Elements

Development of realistic options

3.79
(38,
60.5%)

3.97
(461,
75.1%)

4.14
(146,
80.1%)

3.95
(570,
76.3%)

3.98
(367,
73.6%)

4.07
(317,
78.2%)

Satisfaction with the fairness of the session

4.23
(39,
87.2%)

4.32
(479,
85.8%)

4.41
(151,
90.7%)

4.28
(588,
87.1%)

4.25
(372,
86.6%)

4.32
(324,
84.9%)

Satisfaction with the results

3.03
(33,
39.4%)

3.62
(454,
60.8%)

3.68
(142,
63.4%)

3.59
(555,
61.3%)

3.67
(352,
63.9%)

3.64
(305,
62.6%)

*Satisfaction is measured by the "mean responses" of the
participants on a Likert scale (scale of 1 {strongly disagree} to 5
{strongly agree}) and by the percentage of participants who agreed
or strongly agreed with the statements. The sample size (n) is also
given for evaluation purposes. Figures in bold refer to statements
where a statistically significant difference (evaluated at 95%
confidence level) exists between the mean responses of the charging
parties and respondents.

Among the participants of the fifth group (disability), the
respondents agreed more strongly than the charging parties that
they understood the process and that they were more satisfied with
the fairness of mediation and with the results of mediation.
Charging parties, on the other hand, felt more strongly that the
mediator helped to clarify their needs.

Among the participants of the sixth group (age) there were
significant differences between the charging parties and
respondents on six of the thirteen statements. While both groups
expressed positive sentiments regarding the various elements,
respondents agreed more strongly than the charging parties that
they understood the process, they had an opportunity to present
their views, the mediator was neutral in the beginning, and that
the mediator used fair procedures. They were more satisfied with
the fairness of the session and with the results than the charging
parties.

c. Issue

The issues under consideration were discharge, terms and
conditions of employment, harassment, sexual harassment, promotion,
wages, discipline, and reasonable accommodation. Between-group
analysis of participant responses shows that there were only a few
significant differences based on issue. There were no differences
among participants whose issues were "wages" and "discipline."
Among participants whose issue was "discharge," respondents agreed
more strongly than the charging parties about the prompt scheduling
of mediation, understanding of the process, opportunity to present
views, and the mediator's use of fair procedures. Similarly, they
expressed greater satisfaction with the fairness of the mediation
and with the results of mediation. Among the participants of the
"terms and conditions" group, respondents agreed more strongly than
the charging parties that they had an opportunity to present their
views. They were also more satisfied with the fairness of mediation
and with the results of mediation.

Among participants whose issue was "harassment," the respondents
agreed more strongly than the charging parties that they understood
the process and had an opportunity to present their views. They
also expressed greater satisfaction with the fairness of mediation.
Respondents, whose charge was based on the issues of "sexual
harassment" and "promotion," agreed more strongly than the charging
parties that they had an opportunity to present their views.
Additionally, among the participants whose issue was "promotion,"
respondents agreed more strongly that they understood the process
and that the mediator used fair procedures. Similarly, they were
more satisfied with the fairness of mediation and with the results.
Results also showed that among those participants whose charge was
based on "reasonable accommodation," respondents were more
satisfied than the charging parties with the results of
mediation.

In summary, participant responses did not vary widely based on
the issue of their charges. Even where there were significant
variations, it is imperative to note that, with few exceptions, the
mean scores were much higher than four, indicating high participant
satisfaction with the various elements of the EEOC mediation
program. As we have seen previously, the procedural elements
received higher scores than the distributive elements. It should
also be noted that when there were differences based on issue, it
was the respondent group that expressed greater satisfaction than
the charging party group.

Table XIII
Charging Parties' Satisfaction Based on Mediation Issue*

Statements

Discharge

Terms and
Conditions

Harassment

Sexual
Harassment

Promotion

Wages

Discipline

Reasonable
Accommodation

Procedural Elements

Explanation, Scheduling, and Voice

Adequate explanation

4.23
(800, 88.3%)

4.32
(312, 90.4%)

4.25
(276, 88.4%)

4.13
(172, 82.6%)

4.19
(161, 85.7%)

4.27
(151, 88.7%)

4.27
(149, 89.3%)

4.17
(143, 83.2%)

Prompt scheduling

4.27
(815, 87.2%)

4.35
(317, 89.0%)

4.32
(285, 89.1%)

4.27
(174, 85.1%)

4.24
(169, 87.0%)

4.44
(154, 93.5%)

4.26
(152, 88.8%)

4.30
(145, 87.6%)

Understood the process

4.34
(817, 92.2%)

4.40
(319, 91.8%)

4.36
(285, 92.3%)

4.32
(174, 89.1%)

4.26
(168, 88.7%)

4.41
(154, 92.9%)

4.41
(155, 94.2%)

4.37
(145, 91.7%)

Opportunity to present views

4.38
(814, 90.0%)

4.43
(317, 91.2%)

4.35
(285, 89.5%)

4.30
(174, 85.6%)

4.26
(170, 87.6%)

4.42
(154, 94.2%)

4.40
(154, 90.3%)

4.48
(145, 91.7%)

Mediator

Mediator understood needs

4.30
(812, 87.8%)

4.30
(317, 85.8%)

4.30
(285, 85.3%)

4.21
(173, 79.2%)

4.17
(169, 81.1%)

4.36
(153, 90.2%)

4.32
(152, 84.9%)

4.39
(145, 88.3%)

Mediator helped clarify needs

4.25
(812, 85.1%)

4.26
(313, 84.0%)

4.24
(286, 81.8%)

4.18
(171, 80.7%)

4.22
(169, 81.1%)

4.35
(152, 89.5%)

4.26
(153, 83.0%)

4.29
(145, 84.8%)

Mediator neutral in the beginning

4.41
(813, 91.9%)

4.46
(319, 90.6%)

4.48
(287, 92.3%)

4.43
(175, 89.7%)

4.41
(169, 92.3%)

4.49
(154, 93.5%)

4.53
(154, 95.5%)

4.41
(145, 91.7%)

Mediator remained neutral

4.42
(810, 91.2%)

4.44
(315, 89.8%)

4.46
(283, 91.2%)

4.39
(174, 87.9%)

4.37
(168, 89.3%)

4.47
(154, 92.2%)

4.51
(154, 92.9%)

4.41
(143, 90.9%)

Mediator helped develop options

4.29
(810, 86.0%)

4.28
(317, 84.9%)

4.32
(284, 84.9%)

4.24
(173, 82.7%)

4.20
(169, 82.8%)

4.36
(151, 88.7%)

4.36
(153, 87.6%)

4.31
(143, 86.0%)

Mediator used fair procedures

4.32
(813, 88.6%)

4.35
(316, 88.6%)

4.36
(285, 88.4%)

4.32
(174, 85.6%)

4.20
(168, 85.1%)

4.37
(153, 90.2%)

4.34
(155, 89.0%)

4.39
(145, 90.3%)

Distributive Elements

Development of realistic options

3.95
(805, 75.9%)

3.92
(316, 73.7%)

3.96
(279, 76.0%)

3.94
(170, 74.1%)

3.83
(168, 69.6%)

4.18
(151, 83.4%)

4.05
(152, 77.0%)

3.87
(140, 72.9%)

Satisfaction with the fairness of the session

4.05
(802, 78.6%)

4.09
(315, 78.7%)

4.11
(282, 80.1%)

4.10
(170, 79.4%)

3.98
(166, 79.5%)

4.24
(152, 86.2%)

4.12
(153, 81.0%)

4.06
(144, 77.8%)

Satisfaction with the results

3.39
(756, 54.1%)

3.42
(296, 54.7%)

3.41
(269, 56.1%)

3.33
(166, 52.4%)

3.17
(158, 48.1%)

3.51
(141, 63.1%)

3.49
(143, 58.0%)

3.28
(137, 49.6%)

*Satisfaction is measured by the "mean responses" of the
participants on a Likert scale (scale of 1 {strongly disagree} to 5
{strongly agree}) and by the percentage of participants who agreed
or strongly agreed with the statements. The sample size (n) is also
given for evaluation purposes. Figures in bold refer to statements
where a statistically significant difference (evaluated at 95%
confidence level) exists between the mean responses of the charging
parties and respondents.

Table XIV
Respondents' Satisfaction Based on Mediation Issue*

Statements

Discharge

Terms and
Conditions

Harassment

Sexual
Harassment

Promotion

Wages

Discipline

Reasonable
Accommodation

Procedural Elements

Explanation, Scheduling, and Voice

Adequate explanation

4.21
(752, 85.8%)

4.27
(278, 86.7%)

4.17
(255, 85.5%)

4.16
(164, 83.5%)

4.13
(152, 79.6%)

4.17
(133, 84.2%)

4.09
(137, 79.6%)

4.06
(133, 78.2%)

Prompt scheduling

4.38
(776, 90.7%)

4.36
(287, 88.9%)

4.31
(261, 88.9%)

4.32
(165, 87.3%)

4.44
(156, 91.7%)

4.40
(136, 91.2%)

4.33
(138, 89.9%)

4.39
(135, 88.1%)

Understood the process

4.55
(773, 96.8%)

4.50
(289, 95.2%)

4.50
(263, 96.6%)

4.46
(165, 94.5%)

4.49
(157, 94.3%)

4.47
(136, 93.4%)

4.46
(137, 94.9%)

4.54
(136, 94.1%)

Opportunity to present views

4.57
(776, 95.4%)

4.60
(287, 96.2%)

4.57
(261, 95.0%)

4.52
(166, 92.8%)

4.50
(157, 93.6%)

4.52
(137, 93.4%)

4.53
(138, 94.9%)

4.50
(137, 91.2%)

Mediator

Mediator understood needs

4.35
(771, 88.8%)

4.32
(284, 88.7%)

4.27
(259, 86.1%)

4.22
(163, 82.8%)

4.28
(156, 86.5%)

4.27
(136,85.3%)

4.33
(138, 86.2%)

4.27
(136, 86.8%)

Mediator helped clarify needs

4.21
(756, 82.1%)

4.13
(276, 78.6%)

4.13
(252, 78.2%)

4.10
(155, 80.0%)

4.14
(150, 78.0%)

4.13
(128, 73.4%)

4.18
(133, 80.5%)

4.08
(132, 73.5%)

Mediator neutral in the beginning

4.49
(777, 91.8%)

4.49
(289, 92.4%)

4.40
(263, 91.3%)

4.37
(165, 90.3%)

4.48
(157, 90.4%)

4.47
(137, 91.2%)

4.42
(140, 91.4%)

4.43
(137, 91.2%)

Mediator remained neutral

4.44
(776, 90.2%)

4.49
(288, 91.3%)

4.40
(263, 88.6%)

4.37
(166, 84.9%)

4.41
(157, 90.4%)

4.37
(137, 86.9%)

4.36
(139, 87.1%)

4.42
(137, 88.3%)

Mediator helped develop options

4.23
(765, 83.5%)

4.17
(284, 82.7%)

4.19
(262, 83.2%)

4.19
(164, 83.5%)

4.17
(155, 83.2%)

4.23
(136, 85.3%)

4.17
(138, 82.6%)

4.25
(136, 83.8%)

Mediator used fair procedures

4.44
(777, 91.6%)

4.44
(288, 90.6%)

4.40
(263, 90.9%)

4.39
(166, 89.8%)

4.42
(156, 93.6%)

4.40
(136, 91.2%)

4.38
(140, 90.7%)

4.45
(137, 91.2%)

Distributive Elements

Development of realistic options

4.02
(756, 76.3%)

3.97
(275, 76.0%)

3.95
(255, 75.7%)

3.95
(159, 74.2%)

3.83
(156, 69.2%)

4.01
(133, 77.4%)

4.01
(135, 78.5%)

3.99
(134, 75.4%)

Satisfaction with the fairness of the session

4.31
(775, 86.8%)

4.39
(289, 88.6%)

4.30
(263, 85.9%)

4.23
(166, 84.3%)

4.35
(155, 90.3%)

4.26
(137, 83.2%)

4.30
(140, 85.7%)

4.26
(136, 84.6%)

Satisfaction with the results

3.67
(740, 63.4%)

3.73
(274, 64.6%)

3.59
(244, 60.2%)

3.58
(153, 58.8%)

3.57
(143, 60.1%)

3.69
(131, 64.1%)

3.66
(133, 63.2%)

3.61
(128, 57.0%)

*Satisfaction is measured by the "mean responses" of the
participants on a Likert scale (scale of 1 {strongly disagree} to 5
{strongly agree}) and by the percentage of participants who agreed
or strongly agreed with the statements. The sample size (n) is also
given for evaluation purposes. Figures in bold refer to statements
where a statistically significant difference (evaluated at 95%
confidence level) exists between the mean responses of the charging
parties and respondents.

3. Participant Responses and the Characteristics of the
Mediation Sessions

Participant responses were analyzed according to the
characteristics of the mediation sessions to see if they varied
according to mediator type, representation, and mediation status.
The analysis is based on within-group comparisons.

a. Mediator Type

The EEOC mediation used both internal mediators (EEOC staff) and
external mediators for mediation. We analyzed participant responses
to see whether they varied according to the type of mediator used
during the sessions. We found only three significant differences
(see the bolded numbers in Table XV) in the responses of the
charging parties and respondents based on mediator type. Both
charging parties and respondents who had an internal mediator
expressed greater agreement about the prompt scheduling of the
mediation than those who had an external mediator. Charging parties
also rated internal mediators highly than external mediators
regarding the realistic development of options.

It should be noted that the comparison of mean scores from the
six statements regarding the performance of the mediators reveals
that charging parties were slightly more satisfied with the
performance of the internal mediator. Respondents on the other
hand, though satisfied with both types of mediators, gave external
mediators a slightly higher score on neutrality. This is especially
true regarding their attitudes concerning the neutrality of the
mediators in the beginning (mean of 4.56 for external mediators and
4.47 for internal mediators). However, as the mediation progressed,
their attitudes changed and this can be seen from the fact that on
the question concerning whether the mediator remained neutral
during the session, the mean score was 4.45 for external mediators
and 4.43 for internal mediators.<122> A significant percentage of
participants (mostly over 80%), regardless of mediator type, agreed
or strongly agreed with the most of the statements about mediation,
indicating strong participant satisfaction with mediation. Table XV
depicts the results based on mediator type.

b. Representation

During the mediation some participants were represented,
whereas others were not. Representation did not mean just legal
counsel; representatives included any individual who was present as
an advocate. We analyzed participant responses to see whether the
responses varied depending on the presence of a representative. Our
analysis of the mean scores of the participant groups revealed
several significant differences based on representation. Among
charging parties, those without representation were more in
agreement than those with representation regarding the mediator's
role in the clarification of needs and in the development of
options. Similarly, charging parties who were without
representation agreed more strongly than those with representation
that most of the options developed during the session were
realistic solutions to the resolution of charges. They were also
more satisfied with the results of the mediation.

Table XV
Participant Satisfaction Based on Mediator Type*

Statements

Charging Parties

Respondents

Internal

External

Internal

External

Procedural Elements

Explanation, Scheduling, and Voice

Adequate explanation

4.26
(1277, 88.4%)

4.20
(343, 88.6%)

4.23
(1189, 86.7%)

4.14
(311, 81.4%)

Prompt Scheduling

4.32
(1311, 88.6%)

4.16
(346, 85.0%)

4.43
(1226, 91.8%)

4.27
(317, 85.8%)

Understood the process

4.37
(1314, 91.9%)

4.31
(345, 91.3%)

4.54
(1228, 96.0%)

4.50
(317, 95.0%)

Opportunity to present views

4.39
(1314, 89.6%)

4.37
(346, 90.8%)

4.57
(1227, 94.9%)

4.57
(320, 95.9%)

Mediator

Mediator understood needs

4.32
(1309, 86.6%)

4.23
(344, 85.5%)

4.31
(1221, 87.1%)

4.30
(315, 86.3%)

Mediator helped clarify needs

4.28
(1309, 85.1%)

4.18
(339, 82.0%)

4.17
(1182, 79.8%)

4.16
(307, 77.5%)

Mediator neutral in the beginning

4.45
(1313, 92.2%)

4.41
(344, 92.2%)

4.47
(1229, 91.5%)

4.56
321, (94.4%)

Mediator remained neutral

4.44
(1305, 90.9%)

4.36
(342, 90.6%)

4.43
(1227, 89.0%)

4.45
(321, 90.3%)

Mediator helped develop options

4.29
(1303, 85.0%)

4.21
(341, 86.5%)

4.24
(1215, 83.9%)

4.19
(314, 83.8%)

Mediator used fair procedures

4.34
(1309, 88.5%)

4.33
(342, 88.9%)

4.44
(1229, 91.9%)

4.45
(319, 92.2%)

Distributive Elements

Development of realistic options

3.99
(1295, 76.5%)

3.83
(336, 71.1%)

3.99
(1194, 75.5%)

4.02
(309, 75.7%)

Satisfaction with the fairness of the session

4.10
(1294, 79.9%)

3.99
(337, 75.4%)

4.30
(1227, 87.1%)

4.34
(316, 85.4%)

Satisfaction with the results

3.39
(1213, 55.2%)

3.37
(318, 53.8%)

3.68
(1156, 63.6%)

3.62
(307, 59.0%)

*Satisfaction is measured by the "mean responses" of the
participants on a Likert scale (scale of 1 {strongly disagree} to 5
{strongly agree}) and by the percentage of participants who agreed
or strongly agreed with the statements. The sample size (n) is also
given for evaluation purposes. Figures in bold refer to statements
where a statistically significant difference (evaluated at 95%
confidence level) exists between the mean responses of the
participants in cases mediated by external mediators and those
mediated by internal mediators.

Respondents differed significantly on eight statements
concerning mediation based on representation. Those who were
without representation agreed more strongly than those who were
represented that they received an adequate explanation of the
process and that their sessions were scheduled promptly. They also
rated the mediator higher with regard to the mediator's
understanding of their needs, clarification of issues, assistance
in the development of options, and neutrality in the beginning.
They were also more satisfied with the development of realistic
options and with the fairness of the process.

Table XVI
Participant Satisfaction Based on Representation*

Statements

Charging Parties

Respondents

With Representation

Without Representation

With Representation

Without Representation

Procedural Elements

Explanation, Scheduling, and Voice

Adequate explanation

4.20
(669, 85.7%)

4.28
(952, 90.1%)

4.12
(877, 82.8%)

4.33
(612, 88.7%)

Prompt scheduling

4.26
(664, 87.3%)

4.30
(963, 88.1%)

4.34
(909, 89.2%)

4.46
(623, 92.3%)

Understood the process

4.37
(692, 91.6%)

4.34
(968, 91.5%)

4.50
(913, 95.0%)

4.57
(621, 96.9%)

Opportunity to present views

4.39
(693, 88.9%)

4.38
(968, 90.5%)

4.55
(914, 94.3%)

4.60
(623, 96.0%)

Mediator

Mediator understood needs

4.26
(690, 83.9%)

4.33
(963, 88.2%)

4.25
(906, 85.2%)

4.39
(620, 89.4%)

Mediator helped clarify needs

4.18
(687, 80.6%)

4.30
(962, 87.1%)

4.11
(873, 77.8%)

4.25
(606, 81.5%)

Mediator neutral in the beginning

4.44
(693, 91.8%)

4.43
(965, 92.3%)

4.44
(918, 91%)

4.55
(621, 93.6%)

Mediator remained neutral

4.41
(690, 90.3%)

4.42
(958, 91.0%)

4.40
(916, 88.1%)

4.48
(621, 90.3%)

Mediator helped develop options

4.20
(687, 81.4%)

4.31
(958, 87.8%)

4.14
(900, 81.2%)

4.37
(619, 87.9%)

Mediator used fair procedures

4.34
(691, 88.4%)

4.32
(961, 88.6%)

4.41
(916, 91.3%)

4.48
(621, 92.6%)

Distributive Elements

Development of realistic options

3.86
(674, 70.9%)

4.01
(958, 78.2%)

3.95
(882, 74.8%)

4.07
(612, 76.8%)

Satisfaction with the fairness of the session

4.12
(685, 79.6%)

4.03
(951, 78.2%)

4.27
(917, 85.7%)

4.37
(619, 88.5%)

Satisfaction with the results

3.22
(630, 49.0%)

3.48
(903, 58.5%)

3.62
(858, 60.4%)

3.74
(593, 65.9%)

*Satisfaction is measured by the "mean responses" of the
participants on a Likert scale (scale of 1 {strongly disagree} to 5
{strongly agree}) and by the percentage of participants who agreed
or strongly agreed with the statements. The sample size (n) is also
given for evaluation purposes. Figures in bold refer to statements
where a statistically significant difference (evaluated at 95%
confidence level) exists between the mean responses of the
participants with representation and without
representation.

In general, it appears that participants who were without
representation found mediators to be more helpful than those who
were with representation. They were also more satisfied with the
outcomes. Table XVI shows the results based on representation.

c. Mediation Status

The attitudes of the participants towards mediation differed,
significantly at times, based on their mediation status. As
explained before, the participants in the study belong to one of
three different groups based on the status of their mediation
session: (1) mediation is completed, and the charge has been
resolved in mediation; (2) mediation is completed, but the charge
has not been resolved and the parties will not continue the
mediation; and (3) mediation is ongoing.

As one would expect, the perceptions of the participants were
affected by the resolution status of their mediation. Table XVII
indicates that satisfaction of the charging parties with both the
procedural and distributive elements varied significantly based on
mediation status. Charging parties who belong to the second group
("mediation finished, charge not resolved") consistently rated all
the statements regarding mediation lower than the other two groups.
Members of the first group ("mediation finished, and charge
resolved") had the most positive feedback.

Among the procedural statements, questions concerning the
performance of the mediator in his/her role as the "helper" (i.e.,
in the clarification of needs and in the development of options)
received the lowest scores from the second group and the third
group, the two groups whose dispute was not resolved. The data also
show that the charging parties, regardless of their mediation
status, were able to differentiate between the procedural and
distributive elements of mediation. For example, analysis of the
means scores of the second group reveals that the scores for all
the procedural statements were either above 4 or close to 4
indicating participant satisfaction with the process. However,
their scores for the distributive elements were lower.

Table XVII
Charging Parties' Satisfaction Based on Mediation Status*

Statements

Completed and resolved
(Group I)

Completed,
not resolved
(Group II)

Ongoing
(Group III)

Procedural Elements

Explanation, Scheduling, and Voice

Adequate explanation

4.31
(915, 90.3%)

4.12
(301, 85.0%)

4.22
(227, 85.5%)

Prompt scheduling

4.36
(931, 89.4%)

4.16
(304, 85.5%)

4.31
(231, 88.3%)

Understood the process

4.43
(935, 93.5%)

4.22
(303, 88.4%)

4.35
(231, 90.9%)

Opportunity to present views

4.49
(932, 92.6%)

4.21
(304, 84.5%)

4.38
(232, 88.4%)

Mediator

Mediator understood needs

4.42
(931, 90.8%)

4.07
(301, 78.1%)

4.27
(232, 84.5%)

Mediator helped clarify needs

4.41
(927, 89.8%)

4.00
(302, 75.2%)

4.14
(228, 78.1%)

Mediator neutral in the beginning

4.50
(932, 93.7%)

4.32
(304, 89.8%)

4.50
(232, 93.1%)

Mediator remained neutral

4.50
(927, 92.7%)

4.25
(303, 85.8%)

4.45
(231, 91.3%)

Mediator helped develop options

4.45
(928, 91.9%)

3.94
(299, 70.2%)

4.14
(229, 81.2%)

Mediator used fair procedures

4.41
(927, 90.5%)

4.20
(304, 85.9%)

4.37
(232, 87.9%)

Distributive Elements

Development of realistic options

4.23
(930, 85.9%)

3.47
(291, 55.3%)

3.68
(226, 61.5%)

Satisfaction with the fairness of the session

4.20
(925, 83.9%)

3.88
(300, 69.3%)

4.03
(231, 76.2%)

Satisfaction with the results

3.87
(879, 70.5%)

2.24
(287, 18.1%)

2.99
(203, 37.9%)

*Satisfaction is measured by the "mean responses" of the
participants on a Likert scale (scale of 1 {strongly disagree} to 5
{strongly agree}) and by the percentage of participants who agreed
or strongly agreed with the statements. The sample size (n) is also
given for evaluation purposes. Figures in bold refer to statements
where a statistically significant difference (evaluated at 95%
confidence level) exists among the mean responses of the different
groups.

The mean scores for the statements concerning the distributive
elements were significantly lower for the second group. As
indicated in the Table XVII, the mean scores of the second group
regarding the realistic development of options, satisfaction with
the fairness of mediation, and satisfaction with the results were
significantly lower than those of the other groups. As the numbers
indicate, charging parties whose mediation session was finished and
their case resolved were more satisfied than the other two groups
(whose dispute was not resolved) regarding the various elements of
mediation, especially regarding the outcome of mediation.

The analysis of the responses of the respondents based on the
status of their mediation session shows that even though their
responses regarding the distributive elements varied significantly
based on their mediation status, their responses to the procedural
elements of mediation were similar with two exceptions. The
exceptions pertained to statements regarding the mediator helping
to clarify needs and developing options. As shown in Table XVIII,
respondent responses regarding the distributive elements of
mediation were similar to those of the charging parties. Members of
the first group ("mediation finished, charge resolved") were more
satisfied with the outcomes than the other two groups.

To summarize this section, participants' satisfaction with the
distributive elements varied with their mediation status; so did
their perception of the role of mediator in the clarification of
needs and development of options. Among the participants, the
responses of charging parties varied more dramatically based on the
status of mediation. The bottom line is that where the dispute was
resolved, the ratings were higher.

Table XVIII
Respondents' Satisfaction Based on Mediation Status*

Statements

Completed and resolved
(Group I)

Completed,
not resolved
(Group II)

Ongoing
(Group III)

Procedural Elements

Explanation, Scheduling, and Voice

Adequate explanation

4.20
(922, 84.3%)

4.28
(308, 87.7%)

4.21
(203, 87.7%)

Prompt scheduling

4.41
(952, 90.8%)

4.41
(314, 91.4%)

4.33
(206, 89.3%)

Understood the process

4.54
(952, 95.9%)

4.54
(314, 96.2%)

4.48
(207, 94.2%)

Opportunity to present views

4.59
(957, 95.3%)

4.55
(312, 95.5%)

4.53
(207, 94.7%)

Mediator

Mediator understood needs

4.35
(950, 88.6%)

4.25
(311, 83.3%)

4.25
(204, 86.3%)

Mediator helped clarify needs

4.24
(920, 81.7%)

4.06
(300, 73.7%)

4.05
(198, 76.3%)

Mediator neutral in the beginning

4.47
(956, 91.1%)

4.55
(314, 94.6%)

4.44
(208, 91.8%)

Mediator remained neutral

4.45
(956, 89.1%)

4.42
(313, 89.1%)

4.41
(207, 89.9%)

Mediator helped develop options

4.37
(947, 89.3%)

3.94
(304, 71.4%)

4.01
(206, 77.7%)

Mediator used fair procedures

4.46
(957, 92.2%)

4.44
(314, 91.1%)

4.38
(206, 92.7%)

Distributive Elements

Development of realistic options

4.26
(947, 87.1%)

3.43
(292, 50.7%)

3.73
(199, 63.3%)

Satisfaction with the fairness of the session

4.37
(956, 88.4%)

4.21
(312, 82.4%)

4.24
(208, 87.0%)

Satisfaction with the results

4.15
(923, 81.0%)

2.55
(292, 19.9%)

3.20
(187, 44.4%)

*Satisfaction is measured by the "mean responses" of the
participants on a Likert scale (scale of 1 {strongly disagree} to 5
{strongly agree}) and by the percentage of participants who agreed
or strongly agreed with the statements. The sample size (n) is also
given for evaluation purposes. Figures in bold refer to statements
where a statistically significant difference (evaluated at 95%
confidence level) exists among the mean responses of the different
groups.

4. Participant Responses Based on Satisfaction with Mediation
Results

Participant responses were analyzed based on their satisfaction
with mediation results. For both charging parties and respondents,
the results on every question varied significantly based on
mediation results. As shown in Table XIX, participants who were
satisfied with the results of mediation agreed more strongly on the
different procedural and distributive questions that were asked
than participants who were not satisfied with the results.

5. Summary of Section C

To summarize this section, participants rated the various
elements of the EEOC mediation program highly. In general, they
gave higher marks to the procedural aspects of the mediation
program than to the distributive aspects. Among the distributive
aspects, participant satisfaction was high regarding the fairness
of the mediation. While participant responses sometimes varied
significantly based on the different variables discussed above, it
should be noted that their mean scores were almost always above
four points (on a five-point scale), indicating their satisfaction
with the various elements of the mediation.

Table XIX
Participant Satisfaction Based on Their Satisfaction with the
Mediation Result*

Statements

Charging Parties

Respondents

Satisfied

Not Satisfied

Satisfied

Not Satisfied

Procedural Elements

Explanation, Scheduling, and Voice

Adequate explanation

4.43
(826, 93.5%)

3.94
(395, 79.2%)

4.31
(886, 88.6%)

3.94
(253, 77.9%)

Prompt scheduling

4.47
(843, 92.2%)

4.01
(398, 80.7%)

4.49
(917, 92.6%)

4.08
(259, 81.9%)

Understood the process

4.53
(848, 96.5%)

4.08
(397, 83.1%)

4.63
(918, 98.1%)

4.27
(260, 89.2%)

Opportunity to present views

4.60
(845, 95.7%)

4.05
(398, 80.7%)

4.70
(923, 98.2%)

4.20
(258, 84.9%)

Mediator

Mediator understood needs

4.58
(840, 95.4%)

3.89
(397, 73.0%)

4.50
(915, 94.3%)

3.84
(257, 67.7%)

Mediator helped clarify needs

4.57
(838, 95.0%)

3.79
(396, 69.2%)

4.38
(881, 87.2%)

3.71
(252, 59.9%)

Mediator neutral in the beginning

4.61
(845, 96.2%)

4.16
(398, 84.7%)

4.62
(922, 95.3%)

4.15
(259, 82.2%)

Mediator remained neutral

4.64
(839, 97.1%)

4.09
(396, 81.6%)

4.61
(922, 94.6%)

4.01
(258, 76.7%)

Mediator helped develop options

4.58
(841, 95.6%)

3.75
(394, 65.2%)

4.48
(911, 92.2%)

3.59
(254, 60.6%)

Mediator used fair procedures

4.57
(839, 95.8%)

3.99
(398, 77.9%)

4.62
(922, 97.4%)

4.02
(260, 78.8%)

Distributive Elements

Development of realistic options

4.44
(842, 93.5%)

3.13
(389, 45.5%)

4.38
(909, 90.8%)

3.07
(246, 39.0%)

Satisfaction with the fairness of the session

4.48
(838, 95.1%)

3.45
(390, 55.6%)

4.59
(920, 97.2%)

3.65
(258, 62%)

*Satisfaction is measured by the "mean responses" of the
participants on a Likert scale (scale of 1 {strongly disagree} to 5
{strongly agree}) and by the percentage of participants who agreed
or strongly agreed with the statements. The sample size (n) is also
given for evaluation purposes. Figures in bold refer to statements
where a statistically significant difference (evaluated at 95%
confidence level) exists between the mean responses of the
participants who were satisfied with the results and those who were
not satisfied with the results of the mediation.

D. Would the Parties Use the Program Again?

As the literature review section indicated, a test of
acceptability of a program is the willingness of its participants
to use the program again. The parties were asked whether, if they
were party to a charge before the EEOC in the future, they would be
willing to participate again in the mediation program (i.e.,
"willingness to return"). As shown in Charts F & G, 91% of the
charging parties and 96% of the respondents indicated that they
would be willing to use the program again!

The willingness to return was analyzed according to the
following variables: mediator type, representation, participant
satisfaction, mediation status, status, basis, company size, and
issue (Appendix C2.1-C2.8). The results indicate that regardless of
the variable involved, an overwhelming percentage (over 90% with
few exceptions) of both charging parties and respondents were
willing to participate in the program in the future. Respondents
were more willing than charging parties to use the program
again.

One could argue that the ultimate test of a system is the
willingness of the parties, who did not obtain what they wanted to
use the system again. As Charts H & I indicate, regardless of
whether the participants obtained what they wanted from the
mediation or not, they overwhelmingly indicated that they were
willing to participate in the program again (if the need arises).
This can be viewed as a very strong indication of their positive
experiences with the EEOC mediation program.